But, but, there's no oil. What could the nifty protestors chant about then? Seriously though, if there are any airbases nearby that we can use, I'd have no problem doing a surgical strike in the Congo. Of course, I'd demand that Konga the Barbarian be used as interim leader. But, I doubt Kofi Annan and company want the big bad Imperialistic Americans involved in African business.

Geez. If we go into Africa, we just need to completely redraw the countries' borders. Rival tribes shoved into one nation after the age of imperialism is one of the main reasons that continent is messed up right now.

Plus, check the AIDS statistics for a good deal of Africa...a lot of countries are going to be FUBAR in a generation or too. Imagine if 80% of Americans had a terminal disease that they also passed on to their kids.

It sounds counter-intuitive to our traditional values on the surface, but if the Europeans just had to go in, they certainly left Africa too soon. Democracy did not have time to spread its roots, and many nations are running more on an extra-bloody feudalism. Rwanda, anyone?

Pray if you're inclined, because sometimes it seems only God can solve the problems some of your fellow men, women, and children endure in some parts of the world.

Oddly enough, a few months ago, there was a protest in front of the White House on behalf of the Congans. Of course, much of the congregation were actual Congans, and were protesting for American military support in the Congo. I had the leaflet they were handing out, but again, it was months ago, so it's long gone.

But then again, why isn't the U.N. doing anything about the distress of the Congan people? Aren't they efficient enough without us?

But then again, why isn't the U.N. doing anything about the distress of the Congan people? Aren't they efficient enough without us?

Well, for a start, the reason we know about the mass graves in the first place is because of the UN inspections that were commenced last week, but then again you probably don't think taking a whole week to find a mass grave is really impressively fast or anything. Also, the UN is trying to find out piddling details like who killed them - there's actually the possibility that it was Ugandan troops. It might be nice to know who's responsible for the deaths before committing armed forces against somebody, right? Right?

Originally posted by godkingBut then again, why isn't the U.N. doing anything about the distress of the Congan people? Aren't they efficient enough without us?

Well, for a start, the reason we know about the mass graves in the first place is because of the UN inspections that were commenced last week, but then again you probably don't think taking a whole week to find a mass grave is really impressively fast or anything. Also, the UN is trying to find out piddling details like who killed them - there's actually the possibility that it was Ugandan troops. It might be nice to know who's responsible for the deaths before committing armed forces against somebody, right? Right?

Does that also mean that the mass executions, starvations, or other "mysterious" deaths that filled up that grave happened a week ago? How long did it take for the U.N. to get involved? Sure, they were tied up in Iraq, but does that mean they have the capability to solve one issue at a time? Sure, a war was at stake there, which probably isn't the case in this fiasco.

Besides, I never said anything about military action. I'm sure whatever created that many corpses can be dealt with civilly and diplomatically, and whatever caused it will stop immediately because the U.N. said so. Hell, look at the U.S. Government! They payed a great amount of heed to those U.N. fellows, didn't they? And why? To prove that Iraq was undermining them too...

Fuzzy logic. I really don't get why the people we put in charge on this planet are rich and not smart.

Going blindly someplace because trouble started is foolish. Diddling around without finding any answers is too. Suffering happens globally, and we just find out about things a little too late sometimes. This is this weeks problem, although it's more than likely been a problem for a while. The U.N. is a good idea, but a lot of people get the foolish misconception, myself included until you pointed it out, that it gets results quickly. I will be absolutely shocked if the U.N. finds out who or what did this any time soon, and moreso when they take action against said entity.

Does that also mean that the mass executions, starvations, or other "mysterious" deaths that filled up that grave happened a week ago? How long did it take for the U.N. to get involved? Sure, they were tied up in Iraq, but does that mean they have the capability to solve one issue at a time? Sure, a war was at stake there, which probably isn't the case in this fiasco.

There's only a civil war going on, and intellectual honesty forces me to admit that civil wars generally aren't the business of other countries, as much as we'd like that to be the case. Hence the reason for the inspections - if we can prove that one side or the other is attacking civilian populations (and note the importance of the word "prove" in that sentence) we can step in and take a side.

And given your argument for the UN's inefficiency, the only counterargument that matters for "how long did the UN take to get involved" is "less time than the United States."

The U.N. is a good idea, but a lot of people get the foolish misconception, myself included until you pointed it out, that it gets results quickly.

You can get fast results or you can get the right results. You can only very rarely get both.

Originally posted by godkingBut then again, why isn't the U.N. doing anything about the distress of the Congan people? Aren't they efficient enough without us?

Well, for a start, the reason we know about the mass graves in the first place is because of the UN inspections that were commenced last week, but then again you probably don't think taking a whole week to find a mass grave is really impressively fast or anything. Also, the UN is trying to find out piddling details like who killed them - there's actually the possibility that it was Ugandan troops. It might be nice to know who's responsible for the deaths before committing armed forces against somebody, right? Right?

Actually, there has been some type of UN 'peacekeeping force' (gotta love that term) in the Congo since November 1999. Additionally, the UN has a budget of $600 million for peacekeeping in the Congo yet is unable to stop the violence or even figure out the source of the violence. The March 29th Economist magazine has an article about the violence in the Congo. One of the most telling quotes about everybody's favorite international organization is as follows: "...Plucking Lendu (one of the Congolese tribes fighting for control of the country) arrows from his office walls, a UN official grumbles that they stole his only copy of a UN report on the looting of Congo by foreign forces." $600 million and no backup whatsoever. Hopefully the report on looting by domestic forces wasn't stolen at the same time.

Originally posted by godkingYou can get fast results or you can get the right results. You can only very rarely get both.

You also have the UN, which gets neither, maximizes cost and manages to keep its credibility (at least in some people's minds) all at the same time.

Originally posted by Corajudoi>Originally posted by godkingYou can get fast results or you can get the right results. You can only very rarely get both.

You also have the UN, which gets neither, maximizes cost and manages to keep its credibility (at least in some people's minds) all at the same time.Yeah...if the UN had spearhead this operation they would've taken a wrong turn, invaded India, capture Bangalore instead of Baghdad, and declared that there was no evidence of Weapons of Mass Flatulence.